You can bet the same companies that spend tens of millions of dollars to extend copyrights to ridiculous extremes, or that want to push for truly ridiculous things like a Broadcast Flag, or the new Webcast Royalties, will spend whatever it takes to get the law changed to their liking. Just as they have done multiple times before. One thing is certain, our lawmakers and lobbyists are relatively cheap compared to the dollars at stake here.

Google may not know it, but they have already lost. They will lose this case if [it is] fought to the end, and whatever moral victories they may be able to gain in a legal battle or settlement will be ripped from them when the DMCA is changed. Then they will still have to negotiate with copyright owners to get their content. [The] entertainment industry may not be great at many things, but getting copyright law changed to meet their [expectations] is one thing they are better than any one at.

Some Internet romantics view this kind of litigation as typical of lumbering, old-economy behemoths. Incapable of innovation and suspicious of technology, content conglomerates such as Viacom respond by filing lawsuits. But like the “useful arts” mentioned in the Constitution, the programs owned by Viacom and other entertainment companies cost money to produce. Companies have the right to protect that investment — even in the age of YouTube.

YouTube doesn’t matter. Because if Viacom wins this suit and busts YouTube – and there is a very good chance it will win; it is, after all, uncontested that this is Viacom’s media property we are talking about – that won’t change what consumers want one whit. They are demanding unbundled media, sold everywhere and in myriad assortments. Period. And if Viacom won’t provide it then some new media entrepreneurs will.

Historical forces in the end overwhelm established law. The Luddites couldn’t stop the Industrial Revolution, John Sutter couldn’t stop the “49s” after his gold, and the mighty Soviets with all their secret police and gulags couldn’t contain the thirst for human freedom.

Wow, having to pay for use something you didn’t create. What a novel idea. The Internet brings many wonderful things to mankind, but the YouTube generation that expects to share everything without paying the cost need to take some basic Economics 101 courses. Wake up……

With DMCA, DRM and the vast extensions to copyright, the rights that used to be accepted as normal for the general public are eroded to such an extent that it amounts to what I consider an abuse of power. I fear that the only legal weapon left to the ordinary consumer is to refuse to buy the products in the vain hope that the greedy corporations will suffer enough to begin to behave rationally. The other alternative will be for the general public to resort to the piracy that these restrictions try to prevent.

Be wary when well-fed elephants like Viacom and Google dance through the courtroom. However even their massive capitalization, over $100 billion combined, should not lead one to preempt the comparative with the superlative. Therefore, I believe the question should be “Who will lose more, Google or Viacom?”

I think Viacom is being shortsighted. People don’t really go to YouTube instead of the TV. I know I have seen clips of shows on YouTube that whetted my appetite to become a viewer, where I otherwise wouldn’t have bothered to watch. I think Viacom is passing up free advertising for its product.